A number of mechanisms are available to assist in smokeless delivery of nicotine to smokers who have acquired the need for such substance in their system. The smokeless nicotine delivery system is needed for a variety of strategies to help smokers deal with a variety of circumstances. For those who need or want to quit, a cessation therapy which involves an alternative delivery system can assist the smoker in tapering off and quitting. Smokers who continue to have the need for nicotine, even where they are unwilling or do not want to quit, need to have nicotine delivery in situations where smoking is unacceptable.
There have been external patches for placement on the skin which delivers a timed stream of nicotine in skin permeable form. Side effects of this transdermal delivery approach has included skin irritation, rashes and difficulty in controlling the delivery rate of the nicotine.
One of the most recent forms of delivery of nicotine has been as a resin form and for delivery in chewing gum. However the gum generally has an unacceptable taste and is available in two strengths. A strong nicotine contains four milligrams in a stick, while a medium strength stick contains two milligrams. The gum delivers a relatively strong dose at the beginning and trailing off as the chewing time progresses. This does not enable a steady delivery, and the availability of the gum in only two strengths does not allow a user to use a fading approach by reducing the strength of nicotine intake over time.
Another severe shortcoming of both the transdermal and the chewing gum approaches is the absence of the physiological analog of the smoker's habit. One of the most severe elements missing from therapy to substitute nicotine is the manipulation and handling of the cigarette itself. As an example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,048,544 to Mascarelli et al discloses the use of a nicotine candy on a stick. The Macarelli disclosure teaches a very low amount of nicotine on the order of 0.1 mg for an entire sucker, but does not teach how to make the invention. Although the nicotine candy of Mascarelli were available, even though he does not teach how to make it, the use of a sucker form is simply too great a departure from the physical form and handling of cigarettes to which the user is accustomed.
In practical terms, for those who are used to working while they smoke, a smoker cannot easily handle a sucker structure during work. Either the sucker structure is in the hand leaving only one hand free, or it needs to be placed in a rest position. It cannot be placed on a table or other desk surface since it would instantly pick up debris. Providing a holder is similarly restrictive. In addition, the sucker cannot be held and at the same time allow the hand holding the sucker to be otherwise engaged, as is the case for a cigarette which can be held between two fingers. In short, the sucker form is totally unacceptable for the user, as has been evidenced by the absence of such a device on the market in the past six years.
What is therefore needed is a delivery system which enables delivery of nicotine and has all of the ease and natural physiological effects of smoking. The needed delivery system should enable more control over the dosage of nicotine per unit time similarly approximating the smoking of a cigarette.